Except "people with less work experience" is not a protected group, so it's not unlawful to discriminate on the basis of previous work experience, unless you do so with the intent of discriminating against an actual protected group. I'm just guessing, but I'd say it would be awfully hard to win a case based on such "discrimination", short of someone admitting that they did it to avoid hiring women.
No. See Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431-2 (1971). A plaintiff can show that some employment criterion or criteria results in a disparate impact upon a protected group, regardless of whether discrimination is overtly intended or not. The burden of proof then shifts to the employer to show that said criteria are a necessary requirement for the job(s) in question. If they can't, they lose. Even if they can, if the plaintifss can come up with an alternate business practice that satisfies the employer's interests without resulting in a disparate impact, they lose. Good or bad, that's the law.
Well, the one thing you don't do to a judge is ignore his court. Not unless you want to learn what the Latin term for "going ape-shit" is.
Their new tactic of arguing that they're too important to be punished - and that's what this is, in effect - isn't likely to get very far either. "You can't suspend our domain; the internet will break!" Good luck with that.
I think the fact that Air America keeps bobbing under the waves like a bad swimmer supports the theory that talk radio simply isn't that interested in the leftist world view.
The bobbing appears to be coming to an end - Air America filed for bankruptcy this morning:
If you ever meet a televison crew (I have one for coworkers), you'd know that media folks can't spell - especially your min. wage Chyron operator. They'll put things on-air exactly how the rundown and graphics are given to them.
...but of course, for some reason, I don't remember anyone auggesting that it was a conspiracy to smear the (moderately conservative) Mr. Innis by the left-wing MSNBC. Which is, after all, the broadcast home of Keith Olbermann! It's a selective sort of outrage, I guess - the ones that work against your agenda are deliberate, the ones that don't are accidents. Convenient, that.
I rather doubt that any government has much right to claim that. Maybe Luxembourg, or Iceland.
Indeed. Nations act in their own interests, in all things. I merely suggest that there is no principled stand on either side here - if there is, it's only because one side has decided that principles are more profitable than the lack thereof this week, which says nothing about last week. Or next week.
Didn't you ever hear the expression, "Two wrongs do not make a right"?
I have. I've also heard of the concept of "rank hypocrisy". Ask yourself which is really the greater wrong. 1) Openly asking another nation to provide information to you in such a manner as to make everyone aware of what you're seeking, which allows those who object to opt out by not traveling to the US, or; 2) going out and gathering who-the-fuck-knows-what via covert electronic surveillance, or, in some cases, via simple B&E with a Minox, doing all this in such a manner that the people whose information you're gathering don't even realize that their privacy has been invaded and their personal effects handled by the sweaty palms of La Sûreté. You tell me which is worse, and then advise the Euros that they abandoned any claim to the moral high ground about two decades ago.
Are you sure EU governments do not surreptitiously collect data on passengers anyway? The EU has a longer history, going back to the 1970s, of placing gendarmes or carabinieri with automatic rifles at airports. The NSA's best customers are European intelligence agencies who purchase the data to snoop on their own citizens.
They hardly have to purchase it from others - for years, French intelligence routinely bugged first-class seats on Air France, to record the conversations of traveling (foreign) executives for purposes of economic espionage, and followed up the interesting conversations by breaking into hotel rooms to get a look at the target's business papers. But somehow it's completely morally wrong to hand over a seat number to les Américains. Right.
>Your 1-bit memory card cannot comprehend that behind your popularist Democrats, filthy Republicans and your "misunderestimated" President there are just people like myself who are sick and tied of your president, your parties, your stinking puppet congress and people you, that is certified utter idiots.
Perhaps he's like me, and really does understand that many people feel as you do.
Perhaps he's also like me, insofar as he simply doesn't give a fuck.
Earthlink subscribers can opt by not being Earthlink subscribers any longer.
It appears you can "opt out" simply by using Firefox. If I put a nonsense domain into IE, it takes me to the Earthlink "help" page, complete with ads and "suggestions" for ringtones and used cars. If I put the same nonsense domain into FF, all I get is the standard FF "Server not found" page. YMMV.
Absolutely, but it was good enough. And when you stop and think about it, isn't that what the x86 market has historically been all about - "good enough"? It just had to be good enough that you didn't have to hold your nose as you were buying one. Slap an IBM logo on it and you've got a winner:)
And the first PCs were pretty crap compared in features and performance - whilst the first 8088 or 8086 IBMs and compatibles struggled on with 80x25 character displays, a beeper and crude user interfaces, the Mac + Atari + Amiga people had bitmapped colour displays, digital audio and WIMP.
BS. The Mac, Atari ST, and Amiga didn't come out until years after the first 8088/86 PCs. Three years later, in the case of the Mac, and four years later (1985) for the ST and Amiga, by which time the first 386s/EGA displays were hitting the market. I suppose you could argue that the initial PC was somehow inferior to a set of products that didn't actually exist yet, but I'm not sure what that gets you, since you couldn't buy a Mac or Amiga for love or money in 1981.
Anyway, by that logic, the first Amigas and Macs clearly sucked, as they're obviously inferior to the machine I'm typing on now, nevermind that this machine didn't exist back when the Amiga/Mac was introduced.
And that the problem of treaties superceeding the US constitution is not new either, and there is much debate and not much actual case law one way or the other.
Actually, that's quite wrong - there's lots of case law on the subject of treaties and executive agreements WRT the Constitution, and it's generally quite consistent. Start with Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1957), and work your way backwards.
This is how legislators keep busy and stay out of trouble. Someone gets burned by an online dating experience, and raises a stink about it in public, and politicians hear that - usually correctly - as a call for someone to Get Out There and Do Something About This. Because we, as a society, have a sort of tacit understanding with our representatives, a shared delusion if you will, whereby they pretend that if only they can pass enough laws, they can build a world where nobody ever gets hurt or offended or upset or inconvenienced or whatever. And we pretend to believe that they can, in fact, actually accomplish such a thing, and reward them by re-electing them, or occasionally promoting them, for their bold attempt at creating what P.J. O'Rourke once called the "Nerf world". I say "pretend", but that's not really true, of course - the reality is that most politicians and the citizens they represent really do believe that an ouchless world is possible. Or if they don't believe it, they sure as fuck act like they do.
...just making it a strict logical construct such as Modus Ponens ("if A, then B. B, therefore A") will not work in a real society.
That logical construct is going to be pretty strictly limited to imaginary societies, insofar as it's not actually a modus ponens argument - "if A, then B. B, therefore A" is in fact the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Modus ponens takes the form "If A, then B. A, therefore, B."
Just FYI before you actually submit your bill in committee:^)
93, if my math is right. Anyway, you slightly understate the problem. Multiplying a 680m 400GB tape by 15 means you'll get about 6TB on that same 680m tape, which is less than 50% of your projected 16TB hard drive - less than 40%, in fact.
97-1-1(a) is a generic conspiracy statute which reads "If two (2) or more persons conspire...to commit a crime, such persons, and each of them, shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction may be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or by imprisonment for not more than five (5) years, or by both." (extraneous subsections omitted).
Obviously I'm not privy to the details, but perhaps the larceny and trespassing charges were dropped as part of your plea deal. As far as the conspiracy charge goes, you said yourself that you were a little fuzzy on the details of what happened - maybe you should ask your friends what they told the cops you were doing or saying that night. I mean, if they all said that you agreed to go around the corner and be a lookout, then you can kind of see where the charge comes from....
What, you weren't tried in accordance with the criminal procedures that govern such things? You didn't have a trial, or you weren't offered one? You didn't have the assistance of counsel? You didn't have a jury of your peers available if you wanted it? Help me out here - which part of what happened to you was a violation of your due-process rights?
I'm a felon, wrongfully convicted of conspiracy to witness. WHAT KIND OF FUCKING LAW IS THAT?
I don't know - Lexis doesn't seem to reveal any such law, nor is Google helpful. Perhaps you're misremembering the charge?
The trouble with slippery-slope arguments is that you can deploy them to argue against virtually anything. All you have to do is take the thing you don't like, attach it to some horribly unthinkable proposition, and then claim - just claim, mind you - that A inevitably leads to B. Today we're criminalizing the act of blowing up schools; tomorrow we'll be burning books and putting puppies on spikes. How can we criminalize blowing up schools? You like books and puppies, don't you? And an argument that is universally applicable is universally worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
No. See Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431-2 (1971). A plaintiff can show that some employment criterion or criteria results in a disparate impact upon a protected group, regardless of whether discrimination is overtly intended or not. The burden of proof then shifts to the employer to show that said criteria are a necessary requirement for the job(s) in question. If they can't, they lose. Even if they can, if the plaintifss can come up with an alternate business practice that satisfies the employer's interests without resulting in a disparate impact, they lose. Good or bad, that's the law.
I do. And the fact that he missed the date of that battle by almost two decades tells you quite a bit about his worth as a military historian.
"Fucksocks"?
I must be getting old...
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061013/air_america_radio_
Pretty much. There was this some years ago:
...but of course, for some reason, I don't remember anyone auggesting that it was a conspiracy to smear the (moderately conservative) Mr. Innis by the left-wing MSNBC. Which is, after all, the broadcast home of Keith Olbermann! It's a selective sort of outrage, I guess - the ones that work against your agenda are deliberate, the ones that don't are accidents. Convenient, that.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/innis.htm
I rather doubt that any government has much right to claim that. Maybe Luxembourg, or Iceland.
Indeed. Nations act in their own interests, in all things. I merely suggest that there is no principled stand on either side here - if there is, it's only because one side has decided that principles are more profitable than the lack thereof this week, which says nothing about last week. Or next week.
Didn't you ever hear the expression, "Two wrongs do not make a right"?
I have. I've also heard of the concept of "rank hypocrisy". Ask yourself which is really the greater wrong. 1) Openly asking another nation to provide information to you in such a manner as to make everyone aware of what you're seeking, which allows those who object to opt out by not traveling to the US, or; 2) going out and gathering who-the-fuck-knows-what via covert electronic surveillance, or, in some cases, via simple B&E with a Minox, doing all this in such a manner that the people whose information you're gathering don't even realize that their privacy has been invaded and their personal effects handled by the sweaty palms of La Sûreté. You tell me which is worse, and then advise the Euros that they abandoned any claim to the moral high ground about two decades ago.
Are you sure EU governments do not surreptitiously collect data on passengers anyway? The EU has a longer history, going back to the 1970s, of placing gendarmes or carabinieri with automatic rifles at airports. The NSA's best customers are European intelligence agencies who purchase the data to snoop on their own citizens.
They hardly have to purchase it from others - for years, French intelligence routinely bugged first-class seats on Air France, to record the conversations of traveling (foreign) executives for purposes of economic espionage, and followed up the interesting conversations by breaking into hotel rooms to get a look at the target's business papers. But somehow it's completely morally wrong to hand over a seat number to les Américains. Right.
Perhaps he's also like me, insofar as he simply doesn't give a fuck.
Although I will point out that FF+Adblock kills the ads that appear on the "help" page, so at least you don't have to see those :)
Musta been a transient thing with their DNS servers - FF is showing it now too. Oh, well - I didn't think it'd be that simple, but ya never know :)
It appears you can "opt out" simply by using Firefox. If I put a nonsense domain into IE, it takes me to the Earthlink "help" page, complete with ads and "suggestions" for ringtones and used cars. If I put the same nonsense domain into FF, all I get is the standard FF "Server not found" page. YMMV.
Absolutely, but it was good enough. And when you stop and think about it, isn't that what the x86 market has historically been all about - "good enough"? It just had to be good enough that you didn't have to hold your nose as you were buying one. Slap an IBM logo on it and you've got a winner :)
And the first PCs were pretty crap compared in features and performance - whilst the first 8088 or 8086 IBMs and compatibles struggled on with 80x25 character displays, a beeper and crude user interfaces, the Mac + Atari + Amiga people had bitmapped colour displays, digital audio and WIMP.
BS. The Mac, Atari ST, and Amiga didn't come out until years after the first 8088/86 PCs. Three years later, in the case of the Mac, and four years later (1985) for the ST and Amiga, by which time the first 386s/EGA displays were hitting the market. I suppose you could argue that the initial PC was somehow inferior to a set of products that didn't actually exist yet, but I'm not sure what that gets you, since you couldn't buy a Mac or Amiga for love or money in 1981.
Anyway, by that logic, the first Amigas and Macs clearly sucked, as they're obviously inferior to the machine I'm typing on now, nevermind that this machine didn't exist back when the Amiga/Mac was introduced.
Actually, that's quite wrong - there's lots of case law on the subject of treaties and executive agreements WRT the Constitution, and it's generally quite consistent. Start with Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1957), and work your way backwards.
Punch a whole what?
This is how legislators keep busy and stay out of trouble. Someone gets burned by an online dating experience, and raises a stink about it in public, and politicians hear that - usually correctly - as a call for someone to Get Out There and Do Something About This. Because we, as a society, have a sort of tacit understanding with our representatives, a shared delusion if you will, whereby they pretend that if only they can pass enough laws, they can build a world where nobody ever gets hurt or offended or upset or inconvenienced or whatever. And we pretend to believe that they can, in fact, actually accomplish such a thing, and reward them by re-electing them, or occasionally promoting them, for their bold attempt at creating what P.J. O'Rourke once called the "Nerf world". I say "pretend", but that's not really true, of course - the reality is that most politicians and the citizens they represent really do believe that an ouchless world is possible. Or if they don't believe it, they sure as fuck act like they do.
That logical construct is going to be pretty strictly limited to imaginary societies, insofar as it's not actually a modus ponens argument - "if A, then B. B, therefore A" is in fact the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Modus ponens takes the form "If A, then B. A, therefore, B."
Just FYI before you actually submit your bill in committee :^)
Uhhh, yes he can. And he did. Never underestimate the awesome powers of Slapdash "editors" - it really is FoRgent, not "Fogent".
http://www.forgent.com/ip/index.shtml
93, if my math is right. Anyway, you slightly understate the problem. Multiplying a 680m 400GB tape by 15 means you'll get about 6TB on that same 680m tape, which is less than 50% of your projected 16TB hard drive - less than 40%, in fact.
Conspiracy only requires that you participate or agree to participate - it's not required that your participation is actually *effective* ;)
Obviously I'm not privy to the details, but perhaps the larceny and trespassing charges were dropped as part of your plea deal. As far as the conspiracy charge goes, you said yourself that you were a little fuzzy on the details of what happened - maybe you should ask your friends what they told the cops you were doing or saying that night. I mean, if they all said that you agreed to go around the corner and be a lookout, then you can kind of see where the charge comes from....
What, you weren't tried in accordance with the criminal procedures that govern such things? You didn't have a trial, or you weren't offered one? You didn't have the assistance of counsel? You didn't have a jury of your peers available if you wanted it? Help me out here - which part of what happened to you was a violation of your due-process rights?
I'm a felon, wrongfully convicted of conspiracy to witness. WHAT KIND OF FUCKING LAW IS THAT?
I don't know - Lexis doesn't seem to reveal any such law, nor is Google helpful. Perhaps you're misremembering the charge?
The trouble with slippery-slope arguments is that you can deploy them to argue against virtually anything. All you have to do is take the thing you don't like, attach it to some horribly unthinkable proposition, and then claim - just claim, mind you - that A inevitably leads to B. Today we're criminalizing the act of blowing up schools; tomorrow we'll be burning books and putting puppies on spikes. How can we criminalize blowing up schools? You like books and puppies, don't you? And an argument that is universally applicable is universally worthless.